So should you (in your words) "take elaborate measures" (meaning to ski in a manner such that you're able to stop or avoid other people or objects) in one case and not the other? How do you know the child you are about to kill is following the rules or not, if you can't see her, and should it make any difference?

"The code is bulleted not numbered in this implementation. How do you know it is the most important part of the code? I have never seen it stated that the rules are in order of importance." I guess you never thought about it. Why do you think the first rule is first on the list? Think. Hmm, maybe it's alphabetical or...?

It's surprising how unaware some parents can be. Many years ago, when our kids were small and terrain parks were fairly new, we were skiing with another family. Their son fell into a feature called the "corkscrew" which was a steep, tightly curved banked trough. He is making a point of not being able to get out, and the Mom is getting angry because she thinks he could get but he is putting on a show. (They are good friends and nice people, but there are some odd interpersonal dynamics there that I never did quite figure out.) It was slick with a pretty good berm, so maybe he wasn't acting, who knows. In any case, I seem to be the only one who realizes this is not the spot for a psychodrama in one act.

I jumped into the trough, picked him up, and tossed him out.

Sure enough, shortly after a teenager comes shooting by going fast, which is after all what the feature was for.

Yeah, I saw something like this at Abasin a couple years ago. A girl fell on the down side of a park feature, in a blind spot. She laid there laughing and posing in fallen positions while her friend giggled with her and took pictures. A teen hit the feature and almost landed on her(obviously, he couldn't see her from where he took off).

Meanwhile I was telling the girl to get up "this is not a good spot to be silly"

could we work on the original scenario? It is also complicated enough to chew on. two grown adults skiing at fairly high speed on an open, uncrowded run.

update: the skier that hit me had his interview with patrol yesterday. would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that, but it's really not my business, actually. patrol will do what is best for all concerned. I imagined what he would say to the man though: that's one big strike on you...and you only get two. straighten up.

I could envision scenarios (e.g. a narrow chute with a turn near the bottom, or a tight tree line where you have to carry some speed) where it would be essentially impossible for the uphill skier to see and avoid a downed skier in time to avoid a collision -- the terrain might dictate that skiing more slowly or taking a better line (in terms of visibility) would be dangerous or impossible. In a situation like that I might buy the argument that the uphill skier was 'reasonably' in control, should not have done anything differently, and is not responsible for the accident.

If I'm reading these posts right, I see that most posters see Rule 1 as trumping all other considerations.

Matthias gives a good example of why I say that all of the SRC apply. Not just rules 1 and 2. If I'm in a collision and I'm the uphill skier and the DH skier violated 3 or 4, rest assured that I will not quietly accept full responsibility for the collision. Likewise, if I'm a witness to a collision and I believe that the DH skier contributed to fault, I'm sticking around and sharing that belief with patrol.

Don't get me wrong, I agree UH skier is almost always in the wrong. I'm just saying that rules 3 and 4 aren't just a courtesy to the UH skier, they are rules too; IMO we need to obey them also or take responsibility for those choices too.

In the discussion under way, some things seem evident. a small child should never ski alone. the adult watching out for her is completely responsible for her and has to be aware of possible dangers such as falling in the path of traffic and emergency procedures such as standing above the fallen child and holding up your poles crossed above your head. a small child should be kept on suitable runs, runs without high speed skiers if possible, and runs on which the child is capable of a reasonable amount of control and balance, not falling every minute. anyone skiing with a small child has to be acutely aware of where they are on the hill at all times. I taught my son to ski from infancy and every time we skied into a blind zone, I was anxious and impatient to correct the situation immediately. Had he fallen in one of those zones, I'd have been rubber necking around, making eye contact, blocking with my body if I had to, picking him up and clearing the zone, asap.

Now if you're doing all of that for the safety of your child, I'm damn certain I can find a way to miss her, every single ski day of my life.

+1!!!

I wish, though, that we weren't talking about a real child, and pointing out that her real grieving father might have been able to prevent this tragedy. I hope this is another painful lesson that others will learn from.

I'm not sure why we are actually talking about kids, I think everyone here knows that they are unpredictable and we all need to watch out for them. But it's the teens and adults that need to have a little common sense while skiing and be courteous to others on the mountain, now just by giving them room, or watching out for them, but doing the following,

1) Look before you enter a run,

2) Don't assume a cat walk is a cross walk, glance up hill when approaching a intersecting run

3) Don't stop under a jump or blind spot, unless you just crashed,

4) When you stop on any run to wait or break, stop where someone else already is, if possible. (I wait behind people who are already stopped, so we don't take up the run). Obviously if no one is stopped then stop anywhere except in a blind spot, or a landing area.

5) If you make a turn and actually travel up hill to stop, look to make sure you are not turning into someone, we know you have the right of way, but now you have just cut the stopping distance down!

6) if you are going to approach the lift line at Mach speed, make sure that you are stopping at such an angle that you are not going to slide into the line if you crash!

7) if I am standing on a bump run, looking like I am about to hit a line below me, please don't ski all the way over to the line I am about to ski, take it and then Crash on it,(especially on a powder day)! Obviously #7 is a joke, but how many times has that happened to all of us!

could we work on the original scenario? It is also complicated enough to chew on. two grown adults skiing at fairly high speed on an open, uncrowded run.

update: the skier that hit me had his interview with patrol yesterday. would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that, but it's really not my business, actually. patrol will do what is best for all concerned. I imagined what he would say to the man though: that's one big strike on you...and you only get two. straighten up.

I hope he gets it.

At our hill as an off duty employee, if it's your fault, you'd be quickly 'value managed' out. I imagine that's pretty much the industry standard, no?

7) if I am standing on a bump run, looking like I am about to hit a line below me, please don't ski all the way over to the line I am about to ski, take it and then Crash on it,(especially on a powder day)! Obviously #7 is a joke, but how many times has that happened to all of us!

You snooze, you looZZ. That whole 'no friends on a powder day rule #8' thing.

could we work on the original scenario? It is also complicated enough to chew on. two grown adults skiing at fairly high speed on an open, uncrowded run.

update: the skier that hit me had his interview with patrol yesterday. would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that, but it's really not my business, actually. patrol will do what is best for all concerned. I imagined what he would say to the man though: that's one big strike on you...and you only get two. straighten up.

I hope he gets it.

I accept full responsibility for contributing to the delinquency of a hijacked thread. Mea Culpa!

Wow, that just sucks man, sorry to hear. Had a similar event happen about 7 years back at Alta. A group of us, maybe 10 or so were coming down a run, stopped off to the side mind you, on a wide open flat, with lots of visibility, waiting for all of us to gather. Some DB, blasts through the group and hammers one of our guys, but keeps going. We lost him in the crowd, but a few of us tried to catch up. Short story, our guy had to go to the hospital, the result was a severely bruised sternum. It was the first day and Dr said, no skiing for at least 2 days. Totally sucks. So, when you stop, you really have to keep your eyes uphill for bombers. That doesn't help your case, I know. Getting hit from behind, that is just flat out negligence. Part of the code is to always yield right of way to skiers below/ in front of you. I'd rather have a complete yard sale then hit someone else.

Is it? You come flying over a blind roller and land on a child skiing slowly...that's different how?

I'd love to hear the answer to this.

If, as Tromano opines, checking your speed and peeping around a blind spot isn't a necessary part of staying in control, then how exactly do you ensure that you don't run into a slow skier over a blind roller? Or a big rock?

avoiding people below you has two steps: 1) observing the slope below you through time. noticing who entered and exited the area before you get there, what direction people are heading and how that reveals their intentions. 2) being alert for the split second reaction to something you see unexpectedly.

Skiing will never be safe for everyone at all times. What does that say about the human factor risks we accept because they really are unavoidable, and human factor risks we take that could be eliminated from the equation?

On this topic: it is so impossible to avoid a collision with a person who is crashing into your back, that it has to be a fundamental trust.

The last couple times I was out on the slopes, I encountered a new kind of collision. I had some "near-misses" with people pretty much parallel to me, but way across the hill... I made a right turn, they made a left turn, and apexes of turns were insanely close.

This could potentially be a "hard hit" due to the physics involved (lateral component of momentum vectors going right into each other).

The last couple times I was out on the slopes, I encountered a new kind of collision. I had some "near-misses" with people pretty much parallel to me, but way across the hill... I made a right turn, they made a left turn, and apexes of turns were insanely close.

This could potentially be a "hard hit" due to the physics involved (lateral component of momentum vectors going right into each other).

So, what is the solution to this?

Keep your head on a swivel and be aware of others around you. Most of the skiers responsibility code is common sense, this is another case where no one wins if you collide.

The last couple times I was out on the slopes, I encountered a new kind of collision. I had some "near-misses" with people pretty much parallel to me, but way across the hill... I made a right turn, they made a left turn, and apexes of turns were insanely close.

This could potentially be a "hard hit" due to the physics involved (lateral component of momentum vectors going right into each other).

So, what is the solution to this?

This is an interesting one. It's one cases one can make for ears being as or more important than eyes for collision avoidance. There are times when listening to head phones, etc... even a helmet that impairs hearing (not all do by any means... this isn't a helmet thread), can be a liability.

The last couple times I was out on the slopes, I encountered a new kind of collision. I had some "near-misses" with people pretty much parallel to me, but way across the hill... I made a right turn, they made a left turn, and apexes of turns were insanely close.

This could potentially be a "hard hit" due to the physics involved (lateral component of momentum vectors going right into each other).

So, what is the solution to this?

Seems fairly obvious--don't ski right next to anyone.

Typically, I'll either take it easy or pass someone when there's enough room. I wouldn't spend more than a couple seconds skiing side by side for this very reason. It's kind of like driving in someone's blind spot--you're just asking for trouble (regardless of whose fault it might be in the end )

The later part of the thread reminds me of the joke how many forumers does it take to change a light bulb. I'm sure you all know the code is just some guideline written by some guy sitting in front of his computer at night with a beer in hand. They aren't written by lawyers and certainly not meant to assign blame/fault, so why all the word crunching?

I would be interested to know if more accidents happen to people wearing head phones than not. I use to wear them but didn't feel like I was as aware of my surroundings with the music drowning out simple things, like, the sound of someone skiing behind me etc..... Not to mention I caused a big Avalanche in the BC, (Berthoud pass, just past current creek bench area, I know I know south facing...) Anyways, I hucked a little cornice at the top and cut hard left then right and was heading towards a huge slide, the entire cornice gave way, I cut away to a big rock outcropping and hid behind it. My buddy who was standing at the top and almost got dropped off the cornice said, "man that was really loud". I couldn't hear a thing with my walkman on... That was the last day I wore head phones while skiing.

I'm amazed at the number of people who wear headphones on the slopes and there is NO way there as safe as someone with full hearing. Just like your eyes and other senses, your ability to hear is critical to avoiding collisions. I'm deaf in one ear and there are times when I simply cross the street in NYC and had some near misses based on deafness on one side. I believe it's also the reason it's illegal in most states to use headphones while driving.

I'm amazed at the number of people who wear headphones on the slopes and there is NO way there as safe as someone with full hearing. Just like your eyes and other senses, your ability to hear is critical to avoiding collisions. I'm deaf in one ear and there are times when I simply cross the street in NYC and had some near misses based on deafness on one side. I believe it's also the reason it's illegal in most states to use headphones while driving.

This comes up a lot with motorcycles and loud pipes. The idea being that the loud exhaust makes it easier for other cars on the road to hear you. This is not true, because of the way sound waves travel, and the priority your brain gives to closer noises. Basically until the bike (or other skier) is right on top of you, you cannot hear them especially if you are travelling at speed. I'm not saying that it's AS safe to wear headphones, but I don't see it as being substantially more dangerous because as I said if I'm moving the other skier needs to be right on top of me (coming up from behind) especially when I'm moving for me to hear him whether or not I'm wearing headphones.

That and my music is so quiet that I can't hear it over the sounds of my skis on the snow anyways, it's mostly for the lift rides up.

In my collision I never heard a thing, wear a helmet which obstructs about 33% I'd say, snow was smooth and silent corduroy. I have continued to wonder why I didn't hear him edging; I think the dude didn't even have time to hit his edges before he was on me. or what? anyhow, not a sound, nada.

The later part of the thread reminds me of the joke how many forumers does it take to change a light bulb. I'm sure you all know the code is just some guideline written by some guy sitting in front of his computer at night with a beer in hand. They aren't written by lawyers and certainly not meant to assign blame/fault, so why all the word crunching?

Wow. This post is so wrong on almost every count...

WITH REGARD TO LAWYERS

As a legal contracts professional, the code reads to me as though it was written by lawyers or those familiar with law. Whether or not, the code (or a slightly tweaked version of it) has the authority of law in several states, including CO. Break the code in those states and you're subject to arrest and prosecution.

With or without statutory authority, the code would provide a sound basis for civil action because; (a) it is a near-universally accepted industry standard, actively promulgated by the NSAA and its member ski areas continuously since 1966; and (b) you as an adult individual skier were made aware of the code and agreed to abide by it when you bought your lift pass.

WITH REGARD TO ASSIGNING BLAME/FAULT

First, it's important to understand the difference between "blame" (which is not a typical legal term) and "fault" (which is).

Being found "at fault" in a civil action means that you engaged in behavior which caused or contributed to injury or damage (this may result in a judgement for damages). Bullet points 1, 3 and 4 of the code identify behaviors which might result in a (partial or complete) finding of fault. Legally, the main function of those three bullets is to assist a court in making findings of fault.

By "blame" you probably meant "responsible to the point of culpability". Bullet point #2 of the code expressly assigns responsibility. ("People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.") Legally this couldn't be clearer.

WITH REGARD TO BEER

They may have tossed back a few back in 1966, but the statute of inebriation expired long ago.

Understanding the code is a legal responsibility in our biggest ski state, and a civil responsibility in all states.

In my collision I never heard a thing, wear a helmet which obstructs about 33% I'd say, snow was smooth and silent corduroy. I have continued to wonder why I didn't hear him edging; I think the dude didn't even have time to hit his edges before he was on me. or what? anyhow, not a sound, nada.

A typical response from a car driver that runs into a large truck............I didn't see you. Lame.

The later part of the thread reminds me of the joke how many forumers does it take to change a light bulb. I'm sure you all know the code is just some guideline written by some guy sitting in front of his computer at night with a beer in hand. They aren't written by lawyers and certainly not meant to assign blame/fault, so why all the word crunching?

Wow. This post is so wrong on almost every count...

WITH REGARD TO LAWYERS

As a legal contracts professional, the code reads to me as though it was written by lawyers or those familiar with law. Whether or not, the code (or a slightly tweaked version of it) has the authority of law in several states, including CO. Break the code in those states and you're subject to arrest and prosecution.

With or without statutory authority, the code would provide a sound basis for civil action because; (a) it is a near-universally accepted industry standard, actively promulgated by the NSAA and its member ski areas continuously since 1966; and (b) you as an adult individual skier were made aware of the code and agreed to abide by it when you bought your lift pass.

WITH REGARD TO ASSIGNING BLAME/FAULT

First, it's important to understand the difference between "blame" (which is not a typical legal term) and "fault" (which is).

Being found "at fault" in a civil action means that you engaged in behavior which caused or contributed to injury or damage (this may result in a judgement for damages). Bullet points 1, 3 and 4 of the code identify behaviors which might result in a (partial or complete) finding of fault. Legally, the main function of those three bullets is to assist a court in making findings of fault.

By "blame" you probably meant "responsible to the point of culpability". Bullet point #2 of the code expressly assigns responsibility. ("People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.") Legally this couldn't be clearer.

WITH REGARD TO BEER

They may have tossed back a few back in 1966, but the statute of inebriation expired long ago.

Understanding the code is a legal responsibility in our biggest ski state, and a civil responsibility in all states.

Apologies to davluri for responding to another threadjack!

I'm on the phone right now so can't read your big block of text well, and I don't really want to argue with even more word crunching especially wot someone in the legal field. My post was simply half joking way of saying its a waste of time (more than usual anyway) to argue who is right or wrong in whatever legal terms you want to throw in, based on something that is a guideline (which it is doesn't matter how you spin it).

The later part of the thread reminds me of the joke how many forumers does it take to change a light bulb. I'm sure you all know the code is just some guideline written by some guy sitting in front of his computer at night with a beer in hand. They aren't written by lawyers and certainly not meant to assign blame/fault, so why all the word crunching?

This is pretty funny. The code was written in the dark ages before personal computers, cell phones and micro-brew. LOL. I'm pretty sure a group of guys came up with some common sense rules at a smokey lodge bar, and after recovering the next day, cut a stencil, and promptly ran it off on the mimeograph, and distributed it by mail with a 4-cent postage stamp.

It was probably at the end of a day when the walked into the bar and while untying his boots, remarked, "Damn, I was hit from behind by some idiot by the T-bar. We should have rules about that".

I'm amazed at the number of people who wear headphones on the slopes and there is NO way there as safe as someone with full hearing. Just like your eyes and other senses, your ability to hear is critical to avoiding collisions. I'm deaf in one ear and there are times when I simply cross the street in NYC and had some near misses based on deafness on one side. I believe it's also the reason it's illegal in most states to use headphones while driving.

Yet its still perfectly legal for deaf individuals to drive, so it can't be that much of a safety concern.

Sorry for the bulk reply, but I've been sick for a few days and not reading Epic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15

If you stop at a stop sign, can see no other vehicles approaching, proceed and are then involved in a collision, you will get a ticket and be named "at fault" if the responding officer is an idiot, which is often the case.

If you really did everything you could to avoid hitting any approaching vehicle, then you should not have been found at fault.

There's an intersection just a few blocks from me where my street has a stop, the cross street doesn't, and the visibility from where the stop sign is isn't great (there's a big building on the left side of the street blocking the view of the corner.) I often have to stop, then creep up further to be sure there isn't any cross traffic flying up the street from the left. If I just stopped at the sign/stopline, said 'eh, I can't see anyone coming from here' and jammed on the gas, I'd be at fault if someone hit me, because driving into a blind intersection at high speed is obviously a bad idea. (We might both be at fault if they were speeding).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

Bingo. The code contains those rules for a reason. If they wanted the code to read: the down hill skier is always at fault no matter what. Take all possible measure to avoid hitting anyone ever. The could have written it that way. They chose not to do that.

They didn't do that because the downhill skier can be at fault if they do really stupid things. Falling in a blind spot and getting injured or temporarily stuck or knocked unconscious is something that is going to happen, and IMO a reasonable person should expect that and ski/ride in such a way that they take that possibility into account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

I am not in the habit of taking elaborate measures to check for things that should not be there in the first place. If people want to make up rules that is not unexpected, this is epic, afterall.

But at the end of the day there is nothing in the code that says I have a clear duty as a down hill skier to go out of my way to do some elaborate check on the roller.

All I can say is: I hope you don't kill anybody, and good luck in court with that argument. You have a duty not to hit or injure people, and you need to take reasonable precaution to make sure you don't do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdf

The legal idea of fault is different from the real world. In the real world, it is perfectly possible for both parties to be at fault, and one side's fault does not absolve the other of his fault.

Depending on the state and context, courts can sometimes find both parties to be at fault, and dole out financial responsibility accordingly.

Quote:

Since people have been bringing up driving analogies, the phrase I remember from driver's ed all those years ago is "last clear chance to avoid the accident." So here is a thought experiment: suppose I'm standing on a wide, empty trail, where I am clearly visible, and I see someone uphill skiing straight towards me. Having more righteous indignation than sense, I stand my ground and let him hit me. Am I at fault? Not by the code, but yeah, I think so.

I was actually on a jury in a civil case that touched on this issue. If you had a way to mitigate the damage (financial or otherwise), but chose not to exercise it, the party at fault may not be responsible for that. (IANAL, and it's probably more complicated than that, but this is something that has happened before and there are court rulings about it. In our case we ended up finding for the defendant, so we didn't have to determine what portion of the claimed damage was their fault.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

The common wisdom of this thread seems to be that sking in control means not hitting other people or objects.

I would say that 'skiing in control' means skiing such that you minimize the chances of hitting someone due to your own (in)actions or inattention. A collision could still occur due to someone else's actions, or some totally unpredictable thing happening.

Quote:

And if you do hit someone or something you were by definition not in control or hit the other guy on purpose? ...And it leaves out the possibility of a true accident. Some one is always to blame.

If you hit someone and you could have reasonably avoided it, you were not in control. If there was no reasonable way you could have avoided the accident, it was not your fault.

"True accidents" where nobody is at fault are possible, but from what I have seen they are pretty rare in skiing. I would actually argue that the situation mentioned later in this thread with two people turning into each other from opposite sides of a wide hill could be in this category -- or at least both parties would be equally at fault.

Quote:

It also apparently requires caution and repetitive checking to see what may lie hidden every time you ski a run with a blind spot.

Yes, you must take reasonable precaution to avoid accidents. Otherwise you will probably be found at fault if you hit someone, regardless of what the 'code' says.

Quote:

I think the problem in these threads is that they try to use the rules of the game-- the code-- that are written to provide safety and then try to use those rules to apportion blame and achieve justice. Its not the right tool for that, I guess except in CO.

Yes, the SRC is not really written as an airtight set of rules that can be used to apportion blame (ie, 'you broke rule 3, so it's not my fault that I hit you'.) They are a set of guidelines designed to minimize the risk of accidents.

I'm not intimately familiar with how the SRC-like laws in CO are interpreted in cases like this. I would think that if you hit someone in a blind spot that you could have avoided but chose not to (by taking a line that sent you through the blind spot at high speed and/or with no ability to avoid them) you would still be at fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmaie

I've never considered the code as a way to apportion blame in case of an accident. To me it seems like a set of best practices designed to make the slopes as safe as they can be give the nature of the sport.

Hypothetical case, someone jumps a roller and hits a stopped skier.

Who is at fault? Both.

Who is more at fault? The code doesn't say, that's for the jury / court of public opinion to decide.

If every skier kept the code a little more in their minds, there would be fewer collisions.

"The code is bulleted not numbered in this implementation. How do you know it is the most important part of the code? I have never seen it stated that the rules are in order of importance." I guess you never thought about it. Why do you think the first rule is first on the list? Think. Hmm, maybe it's alphabetical or...?

When you make a list, are the most important items first or last?

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2OnSnow

If I'm reading these posts right, I see that most posters see Rule 1 as trumping all other considerations.

Matthias gives a good example of why I say that all of the SRC apply. Not just rules 1 and 2. If I'm in a collision and I'm the uphill skier and the DH skier violated 3 or 4, rest assured that I will not quietly accept full responsibility for the collision. Likewise, if I'm a witness to a collision and I believe that the DH skier contributed to fault, I'm sticking around and sharing that belief with patrol.

Don't get me wrong, I agree UH skier is almost always in the wrong. I'm just saying that rules 3 and 4 aren't just a courtesy to the UH skier, they are rules too; IMO we need to obey them also or take responsibility for those choices too.

It's important to keep in mind that the Skier's Responsibility Code is not designed as an ironclad set of 'rules of the road' to cover every possible skiing/riding situation. They are guidelines to reduce the chance of accidents happening. They are definitely not intended to trump each other -- ALL of them are important.

Although people like to drag them out whenever an accident is discussed, civil or criminal responsibility for an accident is a totally different matter. Even in Colorado, I doubt that they make these sorts of determinations solely based on who broke more of the 'rules'. If you do something egregiously stupid, and as a result someone gets hurt, you are probably going to be at fault.